Background
Canada A. (Mother) and Michael K. (Father), who were never married, share a child born in 2019. A 2020 paternity order made Mother the residential parent and gave Father limited parenting time. Father stopped seeing the child in February 2022 amid substance-use problems, unstable housing, and difficulty managing daily responsibilities; he also fell behind on support before becoming current in 2023.
In 2025, Father sought to modify the parenting plan and Mother sought to end his parenting time, arguing that he had abandoned the child and that renewed contact would harm her psychologically. Mother also sought permission to relocate from the Charleston area to Moundsville. The family court allowed the move but ordered a gradual reunification plan: counseling, supervised visits, then limited weekly parenting time, with any expansion requiring a further court petition.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s July 30, 2025 order. It held that substantial changes in circumstances supported modification, including Father’s extended absence caused by substance abuse and instability, his claimed recovery and employment, his current child-support payments, and Mother’s approved relocation approximately 150 miles away.
The court found no abuse of discretion in concluding that the phased reunification plan served the child’s best interests. It declined to consider arguments concerning the counselor’s recommendation because Mother had not properly brought the June 10 emergency-relief ruling or a petition to modify the temporary plan before the appellate court. The court also held that the statutory abandonment presumption applies in connection with an adoption petition and, in any event, Father’s current support payments weighed against abandonment.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s prolonged absence, subsequent rehabilitation efforts, and the other parent’s relocation can constitute substantial changed circumstances supporting a modified parenting plan.
- A gradual plan involving counseling and supervised visitation may support reunification where a parent has been absent for years.
- West Virginia’s statutory abandonment presumption in section 48-22-306 did not apply because no adoption petition was pending.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the broad discretion family courts have in custody and parenting-time matters, particularly when designing a child-focused reintroduction plan after a parent’s extended absence. Appellate courts will not reweigh credibility evidence where the family court’s account is plausible and its plan reflects consideration of the child’s best interests.
It also illustrates the importance of preserving issues through the proper lower-court pleadings and appealing the relevant order; arguments tied to a separate emergency-relief order were not considered in this appeal.